Ian Jackson wrote: > Uoti Urpala writes ("Re: Inbound trademark policy, round 3"): > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > 1. DFSG principles should apply. > > > > IMO taking this as a starting point is completely wrong. DFSG guarantees > > that incompetent and malicious people may freely modify the software. > > You made this point at length in the previous discussion. It seemed > to me that your point of view was not well supported by other people. > As I said, what I wrote in my previous document was what I thought we > had a rough consensus on.
Some people objected to what I said, but much of that was based on objectively false views/claims on their part. Looking back at the thread now, I see little consensus on any real policy questions; much of the thread is about trying to get the objective facts right, and there isn't much discussion about possible policies based on those facts. > I'd encourage other members of the project not to get distracted by > Uoti's points. I think there is no need to rebut them any more. I don't think anyone has managed to write a good rebuttal to them. If you disagree, give a link to a post which in your view does that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1357853787.26124.171.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid